ma_testfandomcom-20200214-history
Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Delta Flyer type
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete " ". *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Deletion rationale Essentially a duplicate of Delta Flyer, and as it's the only one, we don't need a "type" article for it.--31dot 01:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Discussion *'Delete' - not only that, it's type is shuttlecraft. — Morder (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC) ::Hold on, their are two of them (not one), and we use "type" as a designator when we don't have a class name. I'm not liking either justification here, since thus far they are both false reasons. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC) :Traditional naming for shuttlecraft are "Type-X" and "Class-F" so either way it's still named wrong. It's a shuttlecraft not a ship. It would be "Type-Delta Flyer shuttlecraft" or something similar. — Morder (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC) ::How is the fact that it is a shuttlecraft and not a ship matter? Why would we make up an even more convoluted and fake naming scheme standard? --OuroborosCobra talk 03:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC) :Eh. Not gonna argue with you because I don't care to. We all have our opinions and you disagree with them, no big deal. I stand by my decision. — Morder (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC) *'Delete': I could've sworn we had this discussion two, three, or four years, but the page doesn't appear to have been created before (nothing in the log) so I might be misremembering. However, unlike , say, a Class F or Type-9 shuttlecraft, there were only two Delta Flyers and they weren't created after a lengthy ship/shuttle class design process (that we can assume most are), and weren't created to be used as a design template for other vessels. They custom made the original Flyer, then it got destroyed, so they made another one. Oh wait, the discussion is on Talk:Delta Flyer II#A Delta Flyer class?, with comments from a younger (2007) version of myself.--Tim Thomason 04:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC) ::...and THERE are some real grounds. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC) So why not just say that in the first place?--31dot 11:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC) *Good job finding that discussion, Tim. :) My opinion really hasn't changed since then. A "class" article (whether for a starship, or shuttle, or very similar, a species; whether with a known name or with an unknown one) only makes sense if there actually is information that can be put on that article. If there isn't, it's just a waste of a reader's time to make him click on a link that yields nothing new. If any class article only has one or two known members, we should think twice about creating a separate article for it. -- Cid Highwind 14:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC) ::RE 31dot: Shouldn't I be asking you that? I didn't nominate this for deletion, you did. I merely pointed out that the grounds being used were false. You claimed that there was only one ship in the class, this is not true. Morder claimed that it violated some naming scheme, this is not true because no such naming scheme exists. If something is going to be taken as far as deletion, it needs to be for REAL grounds, not false and nonexistent ones. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC) :Actually, I said it's type was a shuttlecraft. — Morder (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC) ::Which is as meaningless a statement as saying that Constitution class should be deleted because it is a type of starship. When asked to justify your statement, you came up with a naming scheme policy that doesn't exist. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC) :::Stop that, NOW, and get back to being on-topic! A possible deletion reason has been questioned, and a better one has been presented. Let's leave it at that. If you can't leave it at that, take it to another page, and do not flood this page with tangential discussion. -- Cid Highwind 18:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Back to the topic, I might be mistaken, but I don't believe it is "false" to state that we don't have "type" articles for one ship, or in this case, one ship and a duplicate of it. I don't believe Morder was advocating such a naming scheme, he was merely making a suggestion as part of his argument.--31dot 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Proving that I was mistaken, I do see a Enterprise-J type article, although I might argue that also could be removed.--31dot 19:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC) :::Yeah. I think the "E-J type" could pretty easily be merged into the E-J article. Look at them - one has content and nearly no background info. The other one has background info and nearly no content (not even a proper name). Why should we not merge those two, to get one article of decent size? -- Cid Highwind 20:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC) *We have tons of single ship example types, like Aeon type, Bonaventure type, Curry type, Elkins type, Huron type, Kelvin type, Raven type, Yeager type, and that is just on Federation designs. The Delta Flyer truly does have two examples, regardless of whether they are the same name. The Delta Flyer also had tons of on screen time and detail in episodes, which cannot be said of almost any of these other types. I hate to say it, but I'm leaning towards keep, rewrite. An article on the Delta Flyer type can get into the technical details of a design that is common to at least two vessels, while the individual articles for each ship can discuss operational use. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC) The E-J is a seperate issue, which I might bring up. :) Anyway, don't hate to state your opinion. If we all had the same opinion this place would be pretty dull. If we end up going that route I could live with it, but I think that we could either delete this or turn it into a redirect to the first DF, as the article on the second could simply state that it was mostly identical to the first(there were some small differences, I think) aside from going into its operations.--31dot 21:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC) ::::Adding my two slips: We have the Type 8 shuttlecraft page that lists two of the shuttles in that "type," the Drake and the Tereshkova. Information on the shuttle pages is what they have done, missions they've been used on, ect. The info on the "type" page is information overall, i.e. similarities to other craft, composition and so on. I would propose that we keep the Delta Flyer type (with whatever naming convention pleases the masses) with a massive re-write. As it stands now, the article seems to be a re-write of the Delta Flyer s first mission paragraph. Included on this page could be internal arangement, armaments, sensors, design history (i.e. the "fins" that Tom wanted on it), and whatnot. As a side note: I believe that "Type-Delta Flyer shuttlecraft" is a bit cumbersome and the Delta Flyer type would be simpler to link. ----[[User:Mainphramephreak| Willie]][[User Talk:Mainphramephreak| LLAP]] 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC) *'Delete'. We simply don't need this article. Any information that could possibly be added to it would come from ST:VOY and hence, it would be in the Delta Flyer article. I see no reason to repeat information. It's unneccesary. -- TrekFan Talk 22:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC) *'Keep' with a major rewrite. If I remember correctly, the controls were different between V.I and V.II, the colors on the interiors were slightly brighter and so forth. There could be a page in there, there just isn't yet. - Archduk3 02:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC) :::::I think (IMO) the proper page for differentiations between the Delta Flyer II and Delta Flyer I would be the Delta Flyer II page itself, under the specifications section. As I stated above, I believe the Delta Flyer is a special case because we *know* it's not a Federation class (we saw the development stage as simple tinkering by Tom). The Curry, Yeager, Kelvin, Huron, and E-J type articles are a separate entity unto themselves, as a logical assumption is that they were at one point design projects of Starfleet. Or alternatively, we don't know and can't infer that they were special one-shots like the Delta Flyers. If this stays (as is clearly plausible), the "Delta Flyer type" name would fit precedent, as a simple unofficial "Ship type" descriptive page like the others, versus the official "Type-X shuttle" that comes in canon. The "Type-X" and "X class" are rightfully reserved for the real names, in my opinion, why the "X type" is what we use to refer to unnamed classes/types (an attempt to limit "Unnamed ship classes" pages).--Tim Thomason 06:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC) :::::By the way, I call the Delta Flyer type decks article. That shouldn't be too hard to handle.--Tim Thomason 06:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC) COMMENT A class? I do not think so. There were only two ever known to be built, and neither were built on commission from Starfleet with intent for mass production. True, it can be surmised that after the return to Earth, Janeway submitted the design to Starfleet, who accepted it for production. Then it would be a class. But this never happened (not canonically, anyway). As it is, it is just two specially designed shuttles built to serve the needs of their mother ship in the special circumstances she was in. Hardly a class. – ''Crimsondawn''[[User Talk:Crimsondawn| hears you...]] 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC) ::Weak Keep: There are no other shuttles like the Delta Flyer, so it's a new design and we can call it "type". It's highly probable that Janeway gave the designs to Starfleet, but it's not canon info.- JustPhil 22:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC) *'KEEP & REWRITE' I agree with OuroborosCobra, Willie, Archduk3 and JustPhil. I think it is a very good system we have, that a class article is the page that focuses on all the technical and overall stuff of a ship design and the individual ship pages focus on the history and missions of the singular ships of that design. The articles need to be rewritten, but must not be deleted! At least in apocrypha: Over a Torrent Sea, Voyager's Delta Flyers were apparently the prototypes of the Flyer-class, that was taken into use by Starfleet after Voyager's return to Earth. Also a Delta Flyer seems to me to be more like a runabout starship, even if they call it a "shuttle". I'm not surprised it has a class name. --Pseudohuman 15:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Delete. There is already a page concerning both the original Delta Flyer and the Delta Flyer 2. Do we really need another one? --Anonymous07921 15:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC) :I've re-written most of this article, there's still some work to be done but I think it's worth having it. Having the individual Delta Flyer articles go over mostly their history allows this one to go over all the technical stuff that we love so much :) --Nero210 19:57, October 29, 2009 (UTC) ::I think the title should be changed to Delta Flyer-class. We have a class leader and a sister ship. And, this doesn't contradict what is should in the canon Star Trek where a shuttle class is named after a class leader, ex. Ju'day-class Shuttle. (The raiders are identified by the captain of the Odyssey as shuttles. Raider is a type of shuttle.) – Throwback 02:31, October 30, 2009 (UTC) * Keep on the precedence that starship articles contain information about what the ship did and class articles contain information that describes technical and statistical information of said class. In this case, there were two distinct vessels of 1 design, with more than sufficient information to describe the class in question, unlike the case of several ship-types mentioned above, or even in cases where there was only one vessel of said class, like the and , which are simply two ideas that happen to be about the same object. Either way, I reorganized the article a bit to better fit in line with comparable layouts, also created a point of divergence for what the subsequent Delta Flyer article would look like. --Alan 18:11, November 7, 2009 (UTC) **'Keep'. This article has now been heavily rewritten and is now properly up to spec, and additionally, as has been stated a few different times here, MA policy is to have a class page for any ship with enough information to warrant one (i.e., not tiny one-off background ships), and to use the "type" denotation when we don't have a canon class name. Now that the article's been heavily augmented befitting a class page, I doubt many will want to delete it any more; it would probably be best to finally get this officially resolved and taken off the PfD list. -Mdettweiler 04:19, November 24, 2009 (UTC) Admin resolution Keeping per rewrite and consensus. Archiving to talk page for reference.--31dot 17:23, December 17, 2009 (UTC)